Skin color gene identified (NYT--Science magazine)

[Martin]

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/science/16gene.html

 

this article in the 16 December New York Times refers to research results published in Science

 

could one now make blond blue-eyed Swedes with black skin, if one so wished?

 

apparently one gene in largely responsible for the black white skin color difference, and they have now found which one it is. in case anyone is interested

[Helix]

Yeah, I heard about that too. Also, the difference in race is a fragment of a gene -- not even a whole one. Race really doesn't matter, it's a minor aspect of a person. Not sure how the KKK will take the news.....(not sure they read either).

[ecoli]

could one now make blond blue-eyed Swedes with black skin' date=' if one so wished?

[/quote']

 

I doubt you could really change your race be gene cloning, but expect that you could do it at birth, but that kind of technology isn't here yet... but, I'm sure it's not too far away.

[Martin]

I doubt you could really change your race be gene cloning, but expect that you could do it at birth, but that kind of technology isn't here yet... but, I'm sure it's not too far away.

 

I doubt that too. I was talking in vitro when the embryo is just one or a few cells.

 

You wouldnt be changing the embryo's race----race is a more complex business---but just making a superficial skindeep change.

 

it might be a frivolous cosmetic change, or it might have utility for UV protection if UV gets a lot more intense, or for special environments like polar and high altitude where there is already a lot

 

BTW ecoli, it is always nice to have the peer-review journal article tagged, instead of depending solely on popular media. I got a lead to the article in Science. thanks to Ian Smith, here is the abstract (to read the whole article you need to go to the library and get the current issue off the magazine rack, or subscribe)

 

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/310/5755/1782

[silkworm]

Did anyone happen to see the story on ABC news? I don't remember them using the word evolution, but maybe they're targeting an audience with information before they tune it out for the greater good.

 

We're all african, and skin color is all about feedback in vitamin D production.

 

Biology is very much not my area at this point but I have a few questions. I've always envisioned mutation that drive evolution as absolutely "random" (without having a cause and effect relationship with what is needed) and can not be dictated by environment (only selected against). But when you looks at pigmentation about human populations that have spent a decent amount of time where they are all pigmentation seems to change like a slide ruler. Like Africa, black skin dark hair. Turkey, brown hair brown skin. Germany, white skin brown hair. Ireland, white skin red hair. Scandanavia, white skin blonde hair. Even hair color appears to get lighter as you travel north of the equator, and I have no idea how hair color would give you an advantage other than sexual selection. Like, maybe my german heritage is the reason why I have such a thing for brunettes (though I do like them all, my favorites though are always brunettes), and maybe the same thing has happened in these other cultures because of their own pigmentation.

 

Is the deal with this mutation that the gene became a slide ruler (adjusting across generations to the direction pushed to make the right measurement)? If so, is it dominated by feedback? Are there other genes like this?

 

There's also this:

 

From: http://www.primates.com/chimps/chimpanzee-info.html

The eastern common chimpanzee has longer hair than the other two subspecies and has bronze or coppery facial skin color. The central common chimpanzee has a black pigmentation to the face. The western common chimpanzee has facial skin that is pink in color, but it darkens with age. The pelage color is black but may range from brown to ginger.

 

Could this be the same thing or a very different thing entirely? I guess a more direct question would be, can a person with this mutation have black skin?

 

Are we sure of a split with this gene?

 

I'm just looking for some clarity. I'm seriously handcuffed when it comes to genetics.

[starbug1]

could one now make blond blue-eyed Swedes with black skin, if one so wished?

 

Does epistasis not contribute to hair and skin color anymore? I was always under inpression that the genes responsible for one always affected the other. By this rule, if one had dark skin, they would have dark hair. If one had light skin, they have a lighter color hair (However, the white skin is recessive for affecting hair color.)

 

 

Europeans may originally have had dark skin, but they also would have dark hair. Their skin color changed by influx of new genes, and thus hair color changed with it.

[Martin]

starbug and silkworm, we have to get Mokele or Skye to weigh in on this, or some other bio expert.

starbug you may very well be right that it is impossible to get blue eyes if you have this gene, but I cant say! dont know enough!

 

interesting question. all I get from the report is it affects skin color, but may also affect other things

 

thanks for the comments, all

[starbug1]

starbug and silkworm' date=' we have to get Mokele or Skye to weigh in on this, or some other bio expert.

starbug you may very well be right that it is impossible to get blue eyes if you have this gene, but I cant say! dont know enough![/quote']

 

Sure, I can wait for Mokele or Skye, but I am almost certain hair and skin color go hand in hand, a process called epistasis.

[rakuenso]

i think linkage is the problem here, not necessarily epistasis, it is very possible that the genes responsible for hair color and skin color are located very close to each other, so that during meiotic recombination, there is a very very high chance that both genes will be exchanged during the homologs crossover.

 

epistasis is a general genetics term used to describe the fact that one gene supresses all the other genes. I don't think melanin is being supressed or vice versa...

[bascule]

I've always envisioned mutation that drive evolution as absolutely "random" (without having a cause and effect relationship with what is needed) and can not be dictated by environment (only selected against). But when you looks at pigmentation about human populations that have spent a decent amount of time where they are all pigmentation seems to change like a slide ruler.

 

Thanks to sexual reproduction, genes which are beneficial in a given environment are selected out of the gene pool. A mutation isn't needed to explain every shift in phenotype you see in the lineage of a sexually reproducing population. Genes in the gene pool are constantly being "tried out" with one another, and the best combinations win.

 

That's why you can breed for certain characteristics and start seeing results in a few generations. If you had an asexually reproducing species and depended on mutation for that, it would take much, much longer.

[silkworm]

Thanks to sexual reproduction' date=' genes which are beneficial in a given environment are selected out of the gene pool. A mutation isn't needed to explain every shift in phenotype you see in the lineage of a sexually reproducing population. Genes in the gene pool are constantly being "tried out" with one another, and the best combinations win.

 

That's why you can breed for certain characteristics and start seeing results in a few generations. If you had an asexually reproducing species and depended on mutation for that, it would take much, much longer.[/quote']

 

That sounds a lot like what we do with livestock out here. I get what you're saying about a "woman's right to choose" (if you know what I mean) I'm just trying to get clarification on whether or not these genes are affected by feedback because I'm curious if there is something else going on here specifically with pigmentation.

 

I very much understand that genes that are beneficial to an environment will spread due to the survival of those with the genes, but this is a bit of a different thing. We went from a point where all humans are black to a different pigmentation to cope with no longer being in africa. Are you saying that those that were lighter shades of black in these areas reproduced more until their pigment got so light the gene broke?